Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:59:12 +0100 discovery: process heads in sorted order
Mads Kiilerich <mads@kiilerich.com> [Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:59:12 +0100] rev 18361
discovery: process heads in sorted order
Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:59:12 +0100 merge: process files in sorted order
Mads Kiilerich <mads@kiilerich.com> [Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:59:12 +0100] rev 18360
merge: process files in sorted order
Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:38:14 +0100 commandserver: report capabilities sorted
Mads Kiilerich <mads@kiilerich.com> [Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:38:14 +0100] rev 18359
commandserver: report capabilities sorted
Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:38:14 +0100 bisect: store state sorted
Mads Kiilerich <mads@kiilerich.com> [Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:38:14 +0100] rev 18358
bisect: store state sorted
Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:59:12 +0100 localrepo: store branchheads sorted
Mads Kiilerich <mads@kiilerich.com> [Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:59:12 +0100] rev 18357
localrepo: store branchheads sorted
Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:38:14 +0100 localrepo: store requirements sorted
Mads Kiilerich <mads@kiilerich.com> [Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:38:14 +0100] rev 18356
localrepo: store requirements sorted
Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:59:12 +0100 copies: make the loss in _backwardcopies more stable
Mads Kiilerich <mads@kiilerich.com> [Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:59:12 +0100] rev 18355
copies: make the loss in _backwardcopies more stable A couple of tests shows slightly more correct output. That is pure coincidence.
(0) -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -7 +7 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 +30000 tip